The GOP will fade away, the Democratic party will be (mostly is already) the party of maintaining

[scarletwoman]

the status quo for the Ruling Class/Plutocracy.

And maybe, if we work hard and organize on the streets, we can eventually build up a party of the Left that represents the People instead of Wall Street, Pharma, Big Ag, the MIC, etc.

It's ridiculous to pretend that the national Democratic party of today is anything but the kinder, gentler face of the Ruling Class -- the "Good Cop" who keeps the masses compliant by playing the Noblesse Oblige role just enough to keep the proles in line.

A party that opens its arms to a feckless liar like 'Magic Bullet' Arlen Specter is a party interested only in maintaining privilege and power -- not a party of principles and honor.

The only good thing about Specter's strictly symbolic defection is that it brings the dissolution of the GOP just a little closer. However, what that fundamentally means is that the Dems are filling the vacuum on the Right.

Meanwhile, it's up to us to fill the vacuum on the Left. There will be no progress against the predations of corporatism and the completely corrupt political class in thrall to the Plutocrats until there is a viable political alternative arising from the Left and acting as an opposition party to the Dems.

sw

[BlooInBloo]

1. People proclaiming anything permanent about a political party's fortunes are dumb.

[jody]

15. IMO dumb is too high a rating. n/t

[Two Americas]

61. IMO this is a personal attack n/t

....

[jody]

62. You do mean # 1 don't you or are you personally attacking me? n/t

[Two Americas]

78. yes lol n/t

...

[TwilightZone]

20. The death of the Republican Party is required for the agenda.

Not happening anytime soon.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Nice To See Someone As Disappointed As I Am

Misery enjoys company.

[scarletwoman]

I'm not miserable in the least. I'm seeing a real opportunity.

It's been a long hard slog, but with the Repugs fading away and the Dems taking over as the party of "Business", there will finally be room for a REAL party of the Left.

For far too long leftists have knuckled under to the Dems because they were the lesser of two evils. Once there's only ONE evil left on the field, we can stop compromising with it.

sw

[MannyGoldstein]

11. Good Point

I'll try to cheer up!

[glitch]

55. I completely agree. K & R nt

[creeksneakers2]

93. Let's not get carried away

[Xipe Totec]

3. From cleptocracy to plutocracy is a net shift to the left...

just saying... :hide:

[Muttocracy]

4. :)

[Xipe Totec]

5. Though, I admit, Muttocracy is the ideal form of government

:hi:

[Greyhound]

42. Just who so you imagine have been the thieves running and benefiting from the kleptocracy? n/t

[Xipe Totec]

50. The same people, but now they will do it legally

:yoiks:

[Two Americas]

66. what difference does that make?

Slavery was once legal. It was once legal to deny women the vote. The Bush administration claimed that torture was legal - used an army of lawyers to argue that it was - and too few Democrats are willing to say otherwise.

[Xipe Totec]

88. Chill

Seriously... :eyes:

[Two Americas]

63. no it isn't

Not for anyone who has any sense at all what the political Left is about.

The difference between what you are calling kleptocracy and what you are calling plutocracy is that the former is more obvious and less elegantly and competently managed then the latter.

Making the plutocracy run better, and disguising it more effectively, can only strengthen it. That represents a dramatic net shift to the right.


...

[Xipe Totec]

103. I find your lack of humor distrurbing...

[TwilightZone]

6. The GOP isn't going anywhere.

They'll be the minority for some time now, but eventually, someone with some intelligence will pull them back toward the mainstream and the public will shift in the same cyclical pattern they've followed for generations.

[scarletwoman]

9. They are becoming a strictly regional party of hysterical nutjobs. There won't be room for them

because as the Dems shift more rightward, the GOP won't be needed.

sw

[Two Americas]

68. whom?

Whom are we talking about?

Everyone is saying "them" and "the Republicans" as though we all know what we are talking about. Whom are we talking about?

There is plenty of room for "them" - if by that we mean those doing the bidding of the wealthy and powerful few. They are welcome in the Democratic party.

The GOP was never "needed." It was a tool for the wealthy to use for a while, and they made very good use of it - much more so then we ever used the Democratic party. They never needed it. They don't even need politics at all, or government. They already have the money and power. The only reason that politics exists, or government, is to counter-balance the power of the wealthy few. Otherwise they could just run the country as a plantation - that is their "philosophy" and ideology" and nothing more - and not have to worry about politics and government. They hired people to destroy government and politics - they don't even work very hard to make a secret about that nor do they disguise it very well - yet here we have a bunch of people talking as though there were a philosophy or ideology there, and saying things like "we have a center right population" and thinking that if brand Republican disappears that would mean something, or all excited because a Senator switched the letter after his name.

Yes, the agents hired to destroy government and politics mostly ran under brand Republican and promoted brand Republican. So what?


...

[Warpy]

10. That is a possibility

but I'm afraid it's no longer a probability. The party has alienated its moderate base and now it can't afford to alienate the nut cases.

I don't see any party moderate with more charisma than a bowl of cold oatmeal on the horizon, and they'd need someone with the charisma of Reagan at his pitchman's best.

[leftstreet]

31. They will have to pull left

To remain viable they'll need to move toward things like single payer healthcare, labor rights, anti-war policy etc. The things the voters rejected them for and HOPED the Democrats would deliver.

And if they do that, what does that do to the Democratic Party?

:shrug:

[leftstreet]

32. wrong spot

[Two Americas]

67. why?

Why would they need to do that? And who are "they" anyway? Why would they, whoever they are, care whether or not brand Republican were "viable?"

I don't see how we can talk about politics when we don't know who the players are. What will "they" do? How will those who are beholden to the interests of the wealthy and powerful few, and committed to advancing those interests, continue to be effective? They can stick a "D" behind their name, for one thing. What has then changed? Little or nothing of any significance.

What if those who are now beholden to the interests of the wealthy and powerful few, and committed to advancing those interests suddenly start fighting for the everyday people and the workers? Th wealthy and powerful few will hire new agents to replace them.

Why would any politician take up the cause of single payer healthcare, labor rights, or be anti-war when there is no organized pressure to force them to do that? They won't. It cannot happen.


...

[leftstreet]

86. That wasn't my point

Maybe I wasn't making it very well.

The Democrats went anti-war (rhetoric) in 2006 in order to take Congress. That they promptly approved additional funding was no surprise, as they were never seriously 'taking up the cause' of everyday people. They were just responding to the results their expensive pollsters and advisers handed them.

In order for the Ruling Class to continue convincing us there are two opposing political parties in the US, the Republicans will have to adopt some rhetoric of opposition.

The Dems are not pursuing things that everyday people want. My example was single payer healthcare.

But no, I don't seriously expect either party to do anything but Feed the Rich and Fool the Peons.

[Two Americas]

65. whatever it even is

These opinions about the fate of the Republican party, or the relative success of either of the two parties, are kind of silly when we don't even know what we mean when we say "Democratic" or "Republican." Do we mean the label? Team Blue versus Team Red as though it were a sports contest?

And who are we talking about when we say "them?" What do we mean by "mainstream?" Who is it that would be pulled back to the mainstream? These concepts are all at odds with political reality.

Politics is about power and economics. The wealthy and powerful few who control our politics don't care about parties or labels - they don't even care about the issues. The everyday people who are getting screwed by the wealthy and powerful few don't care about parties and labels either. So who does? And why? We have two groups of relatively well-off people and their sycophants cheering for and identifying with their personal preferred team of powerful people, and the difference between the two groups is as much a matter of style and fashion as anything else.

All politics is about small factions competing with one another for the attention of the public. Nothing has changed there. If the big players move money from the Republican party over to the Democratic party, that means that the Democratic party is now their vehicle for advancing their agenda. It is merely another brand name for them, and nothing more.

There is more celebration here that Specter changed the letter after his name then there would be if he "stayed" a Republican yet started voting for left wing policies - for example the EFCA. Think about that. That proves the point I am making here as clearly as anything possibly could. People will argue against EFCA - and every other left wing idea - here, yet we have demands that now that Specter has a "D after his name, we support him and not attack him. I am not sure if that means agree with him, or pretend we do, or stay silent, but it certainly traps us in one of those three options.

Specter is more welcome in the party than most of the people here are.


...

[Warpy]

7. That's sort of what happened the last time a party marginalized

itself: the Whig Party largely faded into irrelevance while the Democratic Republicans controlled the country. Eventually a radicalized wing of the party realized there were irreconcilable difference within the party and split off into the largely abolitionist Republicans.

Twenty years from now, we might see the Democrats versus the Social Democrats, for instance. Or we might see the Democrats versus the Libertarians if the split goes the other way.

Too big a tent is unstable. Too small a tent pushes a party toward marginalization.

We will be living in interesting times, that is certain.

[krispos42]

16. The Democrats breaking off a Green party spinter group

Then we'd have conserative Democrats vs. Greens, with the Repubs screeching about Reagan in the background someplace.

[Two Americas]

69. other way around I think

The Republican party arose, and then the Whigs collapsed.

[Oak2004]

94. The death of the Federalists is a better analogy here

The Federalists, after the disastrous Adams presidency marked by the first Patriot Ac-- er, the Alien and Sedition Acts, retreated into a Northeast-only party before disappearing altogether.

That left the Democratic Republicans alone on the national stage. But not for very long (historically speaking), because remnants of the Federalists and a wing of the DRs became the Whigs.

[madrchsod]

8. paraphrasing a bb king song...

"i think i`m gonna do like a mole and move underground".....no thanks to one party rule

[scarletwoman]

13. It doesn't have to be "one party rule" if the Left splits off and forms a new party.

Which is what is absolutely needed if we are going to maintain a democratic republic.

sw

[Raine]

12. I'll stick with the Democratic Party

3rd parties are nothing but spoilers where you end up with the worst. x(

[scarletwoman]

14. You misunderstand. I'm not talking about a 3rd party. I'm talking about an opposition party to the

one party that will remain, the Dems. The Republican party is going to die.

sw

[tritsofme]

25. If you don't think it is incredibly probable that a Republican will win at least one of the next

3 presidential elections, then you have had too much of your own kool-aid.

Just four years ago Republicans talked like you, but it was the Democratic Party facing extinction.

[scarletwoman]

26. I'm saying there's work to be done. Let the Dems fill the vacuum that the fading fortunes

of the GOP is leaving. With the DLC and Blue Dogs, they're well on the way.

The job of the Left is to build an insurgency to work in opposition to the Dems as the Dems fill the role of Protectors of the Ruling Class.

sw

[tritsofme]

29. I think you are making two pretty big assumptions here.

One being that the Republican Party, who before the 2006 election held healthy majorities in both houses of Congress, the White House, and if I'm not mistaken a majority of governorships, is now completely incapable of finding some path back to power.

While a Republican resurgence seems very unlikely today, the incredibly poor shape they find themselves in seemed almost unthinkable this time in 2005. Before Bush really started to unravel, many people, even Democrats, took Republican dominance of the House of Representatives for granted.

A few years is a lifetime in politics. In 2004 Arlen Specter had Rick Santorum and George Bush campaigning at his side, but in 2010 it will be Barack Obama and Bob Casey. To speculate past 2012 is fruitless in my opinion.

The other being that you seem to assume Obama will be unable to contain his own left flank. Obama is incredibly popular among Democrats, many polls showing him over 90%. With a group that so heavily supports Obama and presumably his agenda for the "ruling class" a splinter party that is perceived to oppose the Obama agenda will be a non-starter.

[jacksonian]

49. but Republican power was much an illusion

much of Bush's hegemony was based on regional advantages and small, small vote majorities (Diebold?) There never was any real political reason to count the Dems out although fears exisited. To keep their gains and extend their power, the BushRepugs would have had to really deliver some good government and solutions people could get behind.

They didn't. The truth is the numbers from the last two election cycles point to Dem ruling for awhile, much moreso than numbers from Bush years added up for them. Look, Bush, a wartime pres, barely won re-election. Imagine what Obama's numbers would be had he been fighting a war with 70% approval for it - that's what a permanent majority looks like.

The Dems were never in a position of saying "wow, the opposition just got a bigger majority than any for the last 44 years, and the second highest since WWII." That's where the Republicans are now.

Things can change, but right now Dem power is very real in a lasting sense, not just Rovian sleight of hand and media bluster.

[Two Americas]

73. all an illusion

A group of politicians, owned and controlled by wealthy and powerful interests, did business under the name "Republican" and were able to bamboozle much of the public to support them with relentless lying and deception.

They - the wealthy people who control our politics - didn't need the Republican party, they just used it - mostly as a brand name. They don't care about the "issues" the politicians ran on - those "positions" were just used to fool the public.

Is that what Obama is doing - controlling his left flank? What do you think the Left is? If you do not think that the political Left represents the best interests of the vast majority of the people, then you do not understand the Left. Yes, the Democratic party tries to control - or marginalize and silence - those who could be speaking to the public and engaging them by speaking out for left wing ideas. Who would think that is a good thing? Certainly not the people. Certainly not anyone who as even vaguely sympathetic to the political Left.

The political Left is not a "fringe." All politics are driven by small factions, competing for the attention of the public. The small faction - here, and off line - arguing for compromise and centrism - are more of a fringe than the political Left is. They loom larger because they are siding with money and power and their ideas have a greater reach because of that - they can make more noise. It is also always much easier to promote the status quo, because you don't have to actually persuade anyone to agree with that. You merely need to tear down any signs of resistance, and attack the people on the Left. That ensures that nothing will change, and the rule by the few goes on. It is always easier to tear things down then it is to build things.



...

[earth mom]

80. Excellent post-it should be an OP!

:thumbsup:

[Two Americas]

72. Team Red and Team Blue

Of course it is highly possible that we will some day have a president identifying with a political party called "Republican." So what? At one time very left wing politicians such as Lincoln or Seward were elected under the brand name "Republican." At one time hundreds of pro-slavery politicians were elected under the brand name "Democratic."

Team Red versus Team Blue is all an illusion. The MSM presents this horse race partisan idiocy, as though they were covering a sports contest. It amazes me the hold that has over people's imaginations. Should we have opposed Lincoln because he "was" a Republican? Teddy Roosevelt? Should we now support Specter because he "is" a Democrat?

If a "Republican" like Specter can suddenly magically become a "Democrat" when absolutely nothing has changed about his politics, and is warmly welcomed aboard, that should tell everyone that the label - "Republican" and "Democratic" - means little or nothing. It is useful only to the MSM - who can create artificial melodrama and exciting TV programs to hold viewers and sell ad time. None of that has anything to do with politics.


...

[earth mom]

81. Exactly-there is NO difference in the parties. It's actually a class war more than anything else. nt

[Two Americas]

83. yes and no

People will object to the statement "there is NO difference between the parties." They see a difference.

Whether or not people see a difference depends upon which class they identify with. The more upscale a person may be, in reality or in outlook, the larger the differences between the two parties look to them. If we ignore or downplay the inequities in power and wealth, then the two parties look very different. But to do that - to leave power and economics out of politics - is to negate the purpose of politics. Politics is about power and economics - otherwise why bother? Only those close to or identifying with wealth and power deny that, or seek to prevent any discussion happening about that.

The most dominant voices here and everywhere in the party at all levels represent a small faction, relatively upscale and gentrified people. They side at all times with the "winners" and merely think that the "liberal" gentry should rule rather than the "conservative" gentry.

The fight between the two parties is like a battle between two groups of pampered and arrogant princes over who will hold the reins of power. For the peasants, it does not matter so much which group of princes is in charge, but of course it is the only thing that matters to the princes.

When people say that there are vast differences between the two parties, they are talking from the point of view of people in the upper 10% income bracket.



...

[bdamomma]

56. it would be interesting what would splinter off if the repig party died.

[Two Americas]

70. what does that mean?

Is it loyalty to a brand name?

Third parties never work, you are correct - in terms of coming into power, although they make a difference in other ways. When new parties work they are not called third parties. When we say "third party" by definition we are saying a party that will no succeed in becoming one of the two major parties - which is really saying nothing.


...

[mrs_p]

17. couldn't this be a cycle?

i just can't bring myself to believe the repubs will ever go away.

[RandomKoolzip]

23. Yeah... I tend to believe in cycles, too.

I think the Repubs are just heading into a fallow period. However, the right as a whole is both scattering and re-organizing, not fading away and dying. I don't expect the Dems or the left to be riding as high as we are now forever.

[scarletwoman]

27. Don't mistake the Dems as the party of the Left -- they most certainly are NOT.

In reality there are only two factions in the U.S. -- the Ruling Class and the rest of us. The Dems have long been morphing into the party of the Ruling Class -- and the Repugs are rapidly proving themselves to be too flakey to be a reliable vehicle for Ruling Class interests.

Therefore, as the Dems take on that position, it opens up a space on the left to be the counterforce to the Plutocracy.

sw

[leftofthedial]

18. how do we organize?

I'm already old and worn out.

[scarletwoman]

19. Start with the workers. If the Dems throw them under the bus by blocking the EFCA,

then it's the perfect opportunity for offering them an alternative to the party of the Ruling Class.

I'm not saying this is going to be quick or easy, it's going to require real world organizing -- starting from the ground up.

sw

[blindpig]

52. And single payer,

Jobs and single payer health care would be unbeatable, a thousand signs in the street, millions of people, I can see it.

k&r

[maryf]

96. Happy May Day!

The Labor celebration I'm going to will have jobs and single payer as the main subjects, maybe not thousands, much less millions, but its a start from my neck of the woods, and hopefully others...

[dflprincess]

99. The Dems already through works under the bus with their support of Nafta

we just need to get the workers to see that.

The biggest problem we have is that the powers that be and their pals in the mainstream media are just so adept about getting the public to obsess over wedge issues or the scare du jour. If the majority of people are obsessing over Gay rights or abortion or the lates flu germ, they won't notice that both parties are picking their pockets.

Somehow we need to become more like the French and force the government to listen to us maybe even fear us but we won't be able to do that unless we stop being afraid.

[Beam Me Up]

21. I wish I shared your optimism.

It is going to depend on how the next months and years shake out. There are SO MANY challenges it looks almost overwhelming. There is still plenty of time for even deeper shit to hit the fan that can be spun by the right for their own purposes. If there's anything I've learned over the last 45 years of watching politics it is don't ever underestimate the right wing. They've shit-canned this country and that wasn't due to incompetence.

The current historical situation isn't like the past. The future isn't going to be like the past. The solutions to our predicament now can't come by rearview mirror politics. What is needed is a completely new, and radical, reorientation to our present predicament. I believe, for one thing, that must include mapping the realm of "deep politics". We're an empire in decline, not a burgeoning industrial and military power. We've been economically eviscerated and the vultures are waiting in the wings.

What is needed is a new vision of what is possible giving the current crises looming on our immediate horizon. I don't yet see that vision being articulated on the left or the right. That dichotomy may in fact now be irrelevant. Can populism deconstruct the deep corporate state? If so, what is the strategy for that?

[scarletwoman]

24. I'm a deeply cynical person, actually. I didn't mean to sound optimistic -- how embarassing!.

I just wanted to point out that as the Republican party moves further to the fringes, the Dems will be picking up their slack -- which could present an opportunity for the Left, if we'd just get off our asses and make use of it.

I don't in the least disagree with anything you wrote. And your question: "Can populism deconstruct the deep corporate state? If so, what is the strategy for that?" gets to the crux of the matter.

So, "what is the strategy?" Imho, it starts with taking a stand, yes? It starts with not accepting that the well-being of the masses is secondary to the political calculations of those who clearly serve the interests of the Ruling Class. It starts with not accepting that voting for the lesser of two evils is good enough.

sw

[rhett o rick]

40. Great OP. I agree with you completely. You say it so well.

I am also cynical and I do not see the fact that the republiCon party drying up as a good sign. The corporatists are just moving from the republiCon party to the Democratic party. And they already have considerable control if not absolute control. I think it a mistake to view the game (read war) as between the two identifiable parties of Democrats and republiCons. There are at least three groups. The wacko far right currently making up most of the remaining republiCon party. Then there are the corporatists and their mainstream gullible followers. This makes up a significant share of the Democratic Party. And then there are the leftists in the Democratic party. Thom Hartmann says we (the leftists) should take over the Democratic Party. I can't see that happening as they (the corporatist lackeys) hold all the power, media and all the cash. As you mentioned, maybe the lefties could lead a populist revolt and form a new party. Which leads to the question: "Can populism deconstruct the deep corporate state?". I don't believe so. At least not until things get a hell of a lot worse. The corporatists own the media that the general public eats daily.

By the way, I catch myself staring at your prayer wheel.

[scarletwoman]

43. Thank you. I personally don't think that "taking over" the Democratic party is likely.

I tend to think that it's more likely that as the GOP shrinks, the Democratic party will move to fill in the gap on the right. This could present the Left a decent opportunity to finally split off from the Dems.

And I'm glad that the prayer wheel draws your attention. :)

sw

[rhett o rick]

58. I replied to the wrong post. Please response #53. nm

[rhett o rick]

53. And you call yourself cynical (said with heavy sarcasm).

When I speak of them "taking over", I am referring to the corporatists (CorpAmerica) and IMHO they have already taken over the Democratic Party. I won't say that Pres Obama is a corporatist but I think they have a heavy influence on him.

Maybe I am wrong, maybe we will see the Employee Free Choice Act passed but I doubt it. Sen Specter's switch will not help.

My two Senators Cantwell and Murray both voted with the republiCons for the Kyle/Lincoln amendment to the budget to give the wealthy billions in tax breaks. These two Democratic Senators are clearly not looking out for the middle class.

[lurky]

22. I agree about the Democratic party.

Corporate power will gravitate to whatever party is dominant, and the Dem leadership is eager to embrace them.

As the Dems become the center-right party and the Republicans wither away into a fringe extremist movement, I wonder how the left will emerge as an independent force. This is much harder in our winner-take-all system than it would be in a Parliament. I think it would require either a formal schism in the Democratic Party or the rise of a left-of-center party in congress, etc. How do you envision this happening? I would like to avoid an extended period of single-party dominance like the Republicans enjoyed for four decades after the Civil War.

[yodoobo]

28. I felt the same way in 1993

"Enjoy it while it lasts, 'cause it never does. "

-Lou Mannheim, Wallstreet by Oliver Stone.


Now is the time to make it count. Unless the world ends in December 2012, we won't be in power forever.

[rucky]

30. Yes, but let's celebrate victory anyways.

for a little while.

[starroute]

33. If that does happen, I think it's more likely the Democrats will split

The system is stacked against starting a new party out of nowhere -- but I could see a growing division between Blue Dog/DLC Dems and the progressives/NetRoots. Hard to split the blanket though -- or to foresee how it might happen without a lot of grief.

But first there's bound to be a battle for control of the Republican Party. The party establishment -- the old-line GOP operatives like Haley Barbour, Ed Gillespie, and Vin Weber -- are already organizing to try to stake out territory. They have some clout through the traditional party structures, like the RNC and the RGA -- but those are only powerful to the extent that they can get corporate money to pass through to candidates, and the corporations have already largely withdrawn their largesse. That was a big part of why the GOP lost so badly in 2006 and 2008.

My best guess at this point is that the GOP establishment falls flat on its face, the crazies take over the asylum, and the corporate money continues to flow to the DLC wing of the Democrats -- while the Netroots (and with luck a revitalized union movement) fund the progressives. At that point, we get a knockdown battle between the corporatist Dems and the populist Dems, ultimately leading to a new two-party lineup.

The Employee Free Choice Act is going to be the first test of how this could shake out -- so keep a close eye on how that goes.

(If all this comes to pass, you read it here first. If not -- I never said it.)

[scarletwoman]

35. That's very much how I see it. Thanks for a great post!

I'll be watching the EFCA very closely -- if the Dems fail this one, that's it for me. I'll do everything I can do to encourage splitting the party.

sw

[starroute]

38. Oh, and some more predictions while I'm at it

One big change I foresee is that the new leftwing party will not be "Green" -- because by then everyone will by trying to appear green, and the old extractive industries like oil that have been so vital to the GOP will be largely out of the picture.

Instead, we will get things like a struggle between corporations that want to build mega-wind farms out in the desert and run power lines to everywhere, as opposed to people who want a windmill in every backyard with sellback rights to keep the whole system working efficiently and economically.

The corporate wing of the Democratic Party will also be heavy on "new economy" industries, particularly entertainment. It's no accident that there are so many RIAA people flooding into the Obama administration. Copyright and open source will be huge issues -- and it could come down to some very nasty infighting over the future of the internet.

The new conservatives will now look anything like the god/guns/anti-gay conservatives that are collectively going bulimic on us right now. They will be socially liberal, will say all the right things about saving the planet -- but you'll be able to tell them by their continuing devotion to centralized, hierarchic solutions, as well as their insistence that that somebody's got to make a profit somewhere.

The new liberals, by contrast, may look vaguely socialistic -- but only in the sense of being devoted to collective solutions motivated by reciprocal support and personal recognition rather than by profit. They will not be 20th century style big government socialists -- and the decentralized solutions they offer may well involve a smaller role for the federal government than those of the new conservatives.

[scarletwoman]

41. Wonderful! Decentralization is the key!

They will be socially liberal, will say all the right things about saving the planet -- but you'll be able to tell them by their continuing devotion to centralized, hierarchic solutions, as well as their insistence that that somebody's got to make a profit somewhere.

Spot on! Thank you so much again for another excellent post! :yourock:

sw

[tomp]

59. split-offs from the dem party will always be labeled as repub enablers.

that will be the struggle. i don't see any other way.

that being said, how about dean/kucinich 2012 for a start? i'm pretty sure neither of them is terribly happy with the democratic status quo. kucinich may very well split on his own if obama's foreign policy doesn't measure up.

[leftstreet]

34. K&R

[empyreanisles]

36. Great. Now that we're becoming popular you want to jump ship.

Obama's term isn't even over and you're defecting. Nice knowin' ya.

[scarletwoman]

37. I'm on the same ship I've always been on: People before profits.

The fundamental reality of politics is Class War. I know which side I'm on.

sw

[Juche]

39. No, the dems are not perfect

But I would like to point out that Obama has called for about $5 trillion in tax hikes and cuts in government subsidies on corporations and the wealthy over the next decade. So its not like the dems are purely a party of corporate interests.

We do not have a true left wing party in the US, just left wing politicians in the democratic party. Which is sad, since opinion polls show the public tend to support left wing policies 40-80% of the time. We just need progressives with the courage, conviction and eloquence to speak for the masses who want public healthcare, equal treatment for gays and a reigning in of the rich and powerful.

[rhett o rick]

44. Great OP. I agree with you completely. You say it so well.

I am also cynical and I do not see the fact that the republiCon party drying up as a good sign. The corporatists are just moving from the republiCon party to the Democratic party. And they already have considerable control if not absolute control. I think it a mistake to view the game (read war) as between the two identifiable parties of Democrats and republiCons. There are at least three groups. The wacko far right currently making up most of the remaining republiCon party. Then there are the corporatists and their mainstream gullible followers. This makes up a significant share of the Democratic Party. And then there are the leftists in the Democratic party. Thom Hartmann says we (the leftists) should take over the Democratic Party. I can't see that happening as they (the corporatist lackeys) hold all the power, media and all the cash. As you mentioned, maybe the lefties could lead a populist revolt and form a new party. Which leads to the question: "Can populism deconstruct the deep corporate state?". I don't believe so. At least not until things get a hell of a lot worse. The corporatists own the media that the general public eats daily.

By the way, I catch myself staring at your prayer wheel.

[HamdenRice]

45. If you believe that, there are forums where you'll feel happier. This one is for Democrats. nt

[Two Americas]

84. objection

I object to these relentless attempts to run people off.

If Specter is to be welcomed with open arms, then by God there is absolutely no justification for insinuating that anyone on this thread is a traitor or does not belong here.


...

[varelse]

87. I'm not a Democrat

and they let me join. Hell, they even accepted donations from me.

[cali]

46. LOL! What's ridiculous are those proclaiming the death of the repuke party

what a short memory you have,grandma. Just a few short years ago, the shortsighted and memory impaired were predicting that the dem party was condemned to a permanent minority. Gee, that was brilliant, wasn't it?

I'm less than thrilled with Arlen's self-serving move, but I think portraying the dem party as morally bankrupt because they embraced that switch, is shallow "thinking". Now there may be better cases to make for the moral bankruptcy of the dem party, but you haven't made them, and personally, I think it's silly to think in those terms.

If you're serious about building another party, there's only one place to start: And that's at the most local level.

[NNN0LHI]

47. We have the snake handlers on the run so now its time to divide and conquer ourselves

Yea, thats the ticket.

Don

[bdamomma]

57. divide and conquer, I want Franken seated, and the EFCA to be passed.

over expectations?

[w4rma]

48. Dumb. Instead fight for the organization and resources of the existing party. Win primaries. (nt)

[dionysus]

51. yeah, we don't want those 60 votes... damn people are friggin daft around here...

:rofl:

[SIMPLYB1980]

54. Got to be pure, Got to be pure, Got to be pure.....

How's that working for the GOP right now?

:toast:

[Orwellian_Ghost]

60. The "purity" canard

is often hoisted up there so as to actually ignore reality nad policy.

Noone was speaking of purity until you injected it as a red herring.

[SIMPLYB1980]

64. Their are a lot of people calling for purity.

"A party that opens its arms to a feckless liar like 'Magic Bullet' Arlen Specter is a party interested only in maintaining privilege and power -- not a party of principles and honor."

Sounds like a purity test to me.

[Two Americas]

75. other way around

Purity suggests small, narrow and homogeneous. That describes the centrists - purely dedicated to the interests of the wealthy few - it does not describe the opposition.

I had to chuckle - rejecting Specter means being a purist??? That shows you just how far to the right we have drifted, and your statement inadvertently sabotages your own argument.

Yes, I guess I am a "purist" - I am open to considering anything OTHER than rule by the few.


...

[DevonRex]

82. I love that word daft. And it sure does fit, eh?

:hi:

[vinylsolution]

71. The party on the left....

... that represents working-class Americans already exists: The Green Party.

Check 'em out, you might like their genuinely Progressive platform.

The corporate media blocks out The Greens becasue they know a thriving Green Party would be a real threat to power - unlike The Democrats.

As the GOP fades away (albeit noisily), I expect the Greens to grow and grow - even with a total corporate media blackout.

[Two Americas]

79. upscale social club

I tried for years to get Greens to canvass and work in the poor neighborhoods and blue collar neighborhoods. You get blank stares in response to that suggestion. I am convinced that this is because for too many, identifying with the Green party means identifying oneself as a superior enlightened person. That makes it a mutual admiration society, a hobby activity, an upscale social club.

Politics has nothing to do with liking a platform. The Greens have always been expert at writing nice platforms.

There are two ways for the Green party to succeed - organize working people rather than gather together the "like-minded" progressives, or take corporate money. The first destroys the image, and negates the purpose for many for belonging in the first place, and the second sabotages the platform.


...

[Generator]

74. I know it's not about one man

nor should it be and I weary of spending time here for the Obama fans with blinders, but he still intrigues me.

He is not only the smartest, best politician in a decade but maybe in five decades, maybe in a hundred, maybe along the likes of Lincoln or Cesar or someone that great-yes that will never be forgotten.

Watching him speak today. The rhetoric, the poetry, the common sense, the charm, and always the endless intelligence.

Yeah, he's sold out some to the ruling class to get the gig. I agree with you, and I know exactly what the Dem party is made of these days.

But with the amount of smarts and popularity he has (Specter coming over in my mind isn't just about the Republicans gone insane-it's about Obama-I don't think it would have happened with any other Dem as prez) I am thinking he could turn flaming liberal in the last four years and stun us all. Just a thought. If anyone could change the country back from the abysses of the military industrial complex-he could-it's just a question if he wants to. So my jury remains out on him, he has the opportunity to do things that I don't think any leader will have again in any soon lifetime.

And I know has to be about the grass roots-because he listens, and they all ultimately have to listen. The third way indeed-meet the third way and it is us.

[Two Americas]

77. separate issue really

Seward as the most powerful, charismatic, and successful politician in the Whig party, and people held him up as an example and a reason to stay loyal to the Whigs - tried to claim that the Whig party was just fine because Seward was in the party. Then the day came when Seward as nominated by the Whigs to run for the Senate, and in his acceptance speech he announced that he was going to run as a Republican, and led most of the delegates out of the hall and down the street to the Republican nominating convention, where they nominated him to run for the Senate as a Republican, which he did.

By leaving the Whig party, the opponents of slavery were able to get out from under the control of the conservatives in the Whig party. This as not a "splintering" nor the forming of a "third party," it was freedom from the control of the conservative few. Similarly, the Democratic party is controlled today by the conservative few. We are told that we have nowhere else to go, and that we are a fringe, just as the opponents of slavery were told in the 1850's.


..

[HughMoran]

102. Good thoughtful post

Nothing to add, just thought I'd add my note of agreement.

[slackmaster]

76. Absolute power corrupts

Absolutely.

[Occam Bandage]

85. So, then, why are you on Democratic Underground?

There are plenty of sites for progressive independents.

[cliffordu]

89. Peoplecrats and the businesscrats.

[BobTheSubgenius]

90. “Politics is the entertainment branch of industry.” - FV Zappa n\t

[mirrera]

91. Democrats say they love you while the F**k you, Republicans just F**k you...

Who said that? I agree with the OP completely! Finally with one Corporatist party we will be able to split off and fight for justice.

edited for speling...

[Oak2004]

92. If the demise of the GOP occurs (and I think it will, though they still might pull out of their

nosedive), the most likely consequence will be that the Democratic Party will split into a right- leaning and left-leaning party. The divisions within the party run deep and are likely to become deeper as ambitious former conservative Republicans begin to join what would be at that point the only game in town, if you want to win higher office. Furthermore political discourse abhors a vacuum. A split could occur much faster than organizing a party from the ground up.

Just think of how much :popcorn: we'll need on DU during the split :evilgrin:

[ProgressIn2008]

95. I raise a glass to ye, scarletwoman. Well said and I agree with every syllable. nt

[scarletwoman]

98. Thank you. I regret that unforseen circumstances have kept me from this thread this evening.

I had hoped to further develop the theme I outlined in my OP, and answer the many arguments posted here, but I'm not going to be able to do so tonight.

Peace,
sw

[RowdyRacer]

100. Goals of the Democrats

I have arrived at the conclusion that the sole purpose of the National Democratic Party is to simply play the Washington Generals to the GOP's Harlem Globetrotters. No matter how weak and batshit crazy the GOP gets, Dems find a way to lose to them on the big issues. For example, the bullshit 60 vote phony filibuster in the Senate. The Dems do NOT have to play by the 60 vote rule...they only do so because they have no intentions of going against the big corporations. They are just as beholden to big business as the GOP, they merely go through the motions of standing up for regular Americans - knowing that they will knuckle under when it really counts.

[maryf]

97. Kick

Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours

[Orsino]

101. Big Money is simply turning to the Dems to wield its influence.

These things come and go, and somehow our representatives never get around to regulating their patrons.